devtrackers.gg
I see no justification for muting me based on the evidence provided by Jagex. Let's go line by line to strengthen my case as much as is possible.
"what is everyone is caught in the act? if everyone bots, everyone gets caught in the act, ban everyone?"
The person argued that only those who get caught in the act should be banned for b******. For him, those who are not immediately caught (e.g. some time passes before Jagex find evidence for b******) should be let off the hook. As such, the next line is as follows:
"so, with time, offences magically become invalidated"
This was directed to the person arguing that people should not be punished if they are not caught soon enough.
"you also assume that b\**** players will instantly and necessarily quit"*
The person was arguing that Jagex shouldn't b** players since, by doing so, they lose players. I pointed out that b***** players will not necessarily quit, at least not right away.
"Okay, I stole money from you, 5 years later, I stopped stealing, I should no longer be held accountable for stealing, got it"
This ties in with my previous comment ("so, with time, offences magically become invalidated"). I was putting forward a hypothetical to expose the absurdity of his position.
"precisely, i would want the person to be punished. that's a straw man"
I agreed that someone who commits a wrongdoing should be punished, independent of how much time has passed. I can't remember what the straw man was.
"we're not talking about severity of punishment, we're talking about punishment in and of itself someone who bots 2 alchs, for example, perhaps shouldn't be permed scale with severity."
On second thought, there might be practical reasons for permanently b****** someone who alchs twice (e.g. deterrence). Still, I still see nothing that warrants a mute here. If anyone wishes to clutch at straws and argue that I'm encouraging rule-breaking by downplaying the severity of b****** 2 alchs, then he should be muted for outright condoning it on the condition that a sufficient amount of time passes. He wasn't muted.
"it's not simply about subjective moral rules, you agree to adhering to"
I can't remember what I was getting at here because the evidence ends abruptly.
---Yet, my appeal was rejected. I contacted Jagex Support on Twitter and was told that the decision was final. The evidence was reviewed, but the appeal was rejected. I'm not ruling out the possibility that I was muted for something else but, as it stands, nothing in the screenshot provided justifies the mute.
tl;dr - Nothing here justifies a mute when context is not removed from the equation. Someone made a case and I put forward hypotheticals to test for consistency. I appealed the mute, yet the appeal was rejected.
External link →